🏳️🌈🖖🏽
The Governor just called the school shooting in Tennessee a “tragic situation.”
Think about that.
🇳🇱
@georgetakei I'm not sure I'm following... It is a tragic situation isnt it? Very tragic.
@freemo @georgetakei And yet our Republican leaders refuse to do anything about it. Instead, they ban drag shows.
The Republicans dont do anything, and the democrats act in ways that make it worse.. both sides are guilty in that sense.
Take your stupid bullshit elsewhere.
If you actually think republicans, or democrats for that matter, are solving hte problem I hate to break it to you, but you are the one witht he stupid bullshit here.
This is squarely on the repubes and their goddamned frightened and angry supporters for worshiping guns and blocking any attempt by Democrats to make meaningful legislation, so you can shove that "both sides" bullshit waaaaaay up your ass.
While you arent wrong about republicans the fact that you think democrats arent actively making it worse rather than better is laughable.. but it clear from your antagonistic and bad-faith tone you will not and probably never have listened to anyone who ever criticized your home team.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
Democrats "aren't doing anything" because Republicans won't let them.
And Republicans are actively trying to make things worse by passing laws that make it easy for teens to get guns.
> Democrats "aren't doing anything" because Republicans won't let them.
Ahh the old "everything is republicans fault, especially the things that the democrats do"... yea sorry but thats a lie people tell themselves because they drank the kool-aid
> And Republicans are actively trying to make things worse by passing laws that make it easy for teens to get guns.
Yup, and while that isnt solving school shootings, it also isnt making it worse.. at least according to the numbers.. higher access to guns (when properly analyzed using valid techniques like granger causality analysis) doesnt actually result in more murders of children, in fact, the numbers show it reduces it.
I do of course understand the common sense reaction to "banning guns will fix the problem".. but sadly common sense often fails us, and in this situation it most surely does.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
Here is a metric for you, few states in the US had fewer gun homicides in 2020 than 1981, most had very many more.
The two most notable drops:
California (still 2nd in the nation) dropped from 4,010 to 3,449
New York dropped from 1,950 to 1,052
What is similar to these two states? They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, mostly involving licensing and training of potential gun owners.
That is what works.
So as a professional statistician I was very clear to state that the critiea is valid analysis, and i pointed out that to do so you'd have to use granger causality or similar techniques.
Is what you just described granger causality or a valid way of analyzing the data based on how experts are trained who know how to analyze data?
Obviously the answer is no, but what I find telling is why did you try to spit out numbers, which i assume were cherry picked (though maybe not intentionally) and not actually ask what i meant by granger causality and try to first learn, objectively, why I suggested it as one of the few forms of proper analysis in this context?
I am not criticising your lack of detail, im criticising your use of data and interpritation that is in direct contradiction of valid statistical analysis.. its the invalidity of your technique in question, not the brevity of it.. it would be equally invalid at any length since the premise itself is known bad analysis.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
Look here, Mr. Expert Statistician with a goofy profile picture trying to defend guns, if you had any statistics to refute my claim that licensing and training and other common sense gun control works, I would love to see it.
Because right now, I am just seeing a weirdo online trying to "both sides" the deaths of people in schools.
I never actually claimed licensing and training is something that is harmful or that I am against... I specifically discussing restricting access to guns,a s long as that training takes into account certain concerns it may be perfectly fine, but I'd imagine you might press back on many of the concerns as well.. but overall I am not trying to sit here arguing you cant require some forms of training for guns so long as everyone has access to it and that training is 1) free 2) quick and 3) does not act as a gun registry indirectly
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
Then you should have read my comment, because I specifically pointed out licensing and training.
But I disagree that it should be free, the cost is minimal, but this is akin to getting a driver's license. Some people might need it, some just want it, but it has the potential to kill people.
And yes, it absolutely should be registered.
> Then you should have read my comment, because I specifically pointed out licensing and training.
I did read your comment it was as follows:
> What is similar to these two states? They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, mostly involving licensing and training of potential gun owners.
I chose to address the "most restrictive int he country" part. The points about licensing and training have their own more nuanced issues and at no point did I feel the need to push against that aspect as I dont think its the most concerning part.. the restricted access is the issue, not the training (outside of the difficulty in the process which i did address already)
and just to address your second half.. my concerns here are bit odf tangents as they relate only marginally to preventing death.
The longer it takes to get guns (including the time it takes to get trained and licensed) the more time there is for a person who is in a life threatening person to remain at risk... A woman who has been threatened or has a stalking rapist needs a gun **today** and restricting her access puts her life at risk. Yes we have cops, but by the time a cop gets there a woman would long since been raped assuming she could call the cops first at all.
But the other issues like cost and registration are serious concerned but arent related to the core issue here of loss of life, those points related to other important but tangental concerns that will muddly the water. So ill pass on diving into that part.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
So, you point to the fact that a person who feels they are in danger might need a gun quickly. Fair enough, but what about the people who want to harm that person? Should a psycho ex-boyfriend who was kicked out of the house after he beat her and was given a restraining order be allowed to get a gun without registering it or waiting to get it?
Should a person with a criminal record of beating, and a legal recogtnition of their danger to the person with a restraining order have a gun... as long as the restraining order is based on evidence that the person has been violent int he past, then I'd say no... I'd also say that they should probably be in jail and the point of a gun is moot then anyway.,
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
But if we don't have background checks, which basically requires a waiting period, then how do we prevent the hypothetical wife beater from getting a gun?
And for the people who, in the heat of anger go and get a gun to kill someone. They don't necessarily have a record, but making them wait a couple days might cool them off.
We do have background checks.. aside from a few holes (which might be worth fixing, thats a different subject) thye overwhelming majority of ways to buy guns all require background checks, this is true of every single state without exception. The background checks take about an hour.
When I bought my AR-15 I had a background check done at the counter and walked out about an hour later. It was actually ssuprisingly strict too, checked my parking record and everything.
If someone is in the heat of anger and is ready to kill someone, chances are they will do it with or without a gun. Considering how trivial it is to make your own lethal weapon with very little tools, and how easy it is to kill someone in a planned sort of situation (like with poison), I dont see that as a particularly useful argument.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
A 1 hour long background check is a joke.
Just to illustrate: Let's say you and I live in Rural Connecticut, a tiny town where everyone knows everyone. I threaten you so badly that you take me to court and get a restraining order. The one sheriff in town sticks it to his dashboard because who else needs to know.
I go to Providence, RI (across state lines) and buy a gun. A 1 hour background check isn't going to get the records from Bantam, CT.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
So, they give me the gun, because everything comes up clean. The only thing slowing me down is the drive to and from Rhode Island.
In your example the court would file the restraining order digitally and post it to the background check database (as they are legally required to do).. what the sherif does with it after that is on him....
Whats the problem here, it is digital and quick, thats the point... If your arguing the court and the sherif werent doing their legal obligation and adding ito the database then your issue is with their negligence and that is where the solution lies or... also making the system sit there just check the same databases more slowling isnt going to fix the problem. What do you think a gun background check is, some person that travels around the world asking every small town sherif if they heard of someone?
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
A standard criminal background check takes 1-3 business days. A Federal check can take up to 2 weeks.
A 1 hour check is a joke and will only catch the most obvious of red flags.
You are talkiung about entierly different types of background checks... Criminal Background checks take a few day, and areunrelated to guns. They are usually performed by employeers using private investigators. The databases used for gun background checks are locked down and not accessible to a PI. Even if they good access it since the data in it needs to remain private it only gives a pass or fail result, so a criminal investigator (who needs to know the details of the crimes cant use it.
Gun background chefcks are automated, secured and specifically designed to covr guns and the needs of gun sales and thus has significant privacy protections... but it also has the advantage of being almost completely digital and thus by its very nature much faster than other unrelated types of background checks.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
A 1 hour check that only has a pass/fail result is worthless.
That makes no sense. Someone selling the gun needs to know if he passed the legal criteria or not. Its not up to them to make any sort of judgement call, that would and should be illegal. Pass or fail is exactly what you need.
The fact that the system is digital and fast seems like a poor argument against it, thats exact the ideal, digital data that is complete and fast to search
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
And what I am saying is that if the legal criteria can be searched and cleared in a single hour, including interstate searches that might not be entered into databases yet, then it's not good enough.
No search is going to be perfect, obviously, but is it so wrong to accept the same background check that would be needed to get a job for gun ownership?
Your reasoning seems very ass backwards, excuse my language...
Instead of worrying that someone is negligent and not entering data in the system as they are expect, and thus claiming any fast system is a failure. Focus on fixing the problem by ensuring people enter data in more quickly so its not an issue.
Do you even know how often data isnt entered into the system and people get a gun simply cause someone is negligent and didnt enter it on time? That probably isnt a huge issue anyway
Absolutely. Everyone should have guns.
I wouldnt go quite that far. But despite being raised in a home with no access to guns and generally anti-gun household I am of the opinion that buying a gun for your home is the responsible thing to do and most people should have one.
Do you have a firearm?
In my main home back int he USA, yes, an AR-15 milspec
That is a good firearm.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
My point is that "completely unrestricted access to guns" is a terrible thing, especially when children are involved.
I am not suggesting a complete and total ban, but IF it came down to a binary choice between no guns at all or guns for everyone including children and crazy people with restraining orders, then I am going to side with the gun ban.
While I certainly lean towards "very liberal access to guns", I never made the claim that guns should have no restrictions of any form. So thats a bit of a strawman there.
In fact I already stated that if licensing was done very carefully I would probably support it (fast,l same day licensing, no ability to act as registration, and no financial barriers or the ability to deny a person a license if they have learned all the skills)
@freemo @kinyutaka @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei a very simple response to this - the UK had a school shooting at Dunblane 27 years ago. We put in place restrictive gun ownership very shortly after. There has not been a school shooting since.
You can talk about statistics as much as you like, but the USA is the only country in the world that behaves like it does. Gun ownership is seen as more important than the lives of children
You managed to replace school shootings, an extremely rare event, with massive increases in violent crimes, homicide, and rape rates... bardly a win.
@freemo @marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei
We are still limited to 500 characters here. I can't go into too much detail, and if you expect that detail, you're a fool. Even if I switch to Milktea to continue this, I'll be truncating a lot of my responses.